Case 1600900/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v B Davies and R Davies, a partnership T/a ‘Gingers Welsh Bakery’ or ‘The Welsh Bakery’ — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600900/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff Via video link
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge W Brady heard the conjoined claims of four claimants against Brian Davies and Robert Davies, a partnership trading as 'Gingers Welsh Bakery' or 'The Welsh Bakery', on 3 December 2024 at Cardiff via video link. The Respondent did not attend and had not filed an ET3. Claimants 1 and 2 appeared in person; Claimants 3 and 4 did not attend.
For Claimant 1 (Miss A Jones), the tribunal found the redundancy and unauthorised deduction of wages claims well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £3,764.37 gross, comprising £1,307.25 redundancy pay, £632.46 holiday pay, £517.14 unpaid wages and £1,307.25 notice pay. For Claimant 2 (Miss C Griffiths), the unauthorised deduction of wages claim was well-founded and the Respondent was ordered to pay £1,530.28 gross (£966.08 unpaid wages, £334.40 notice period, £229.90 holiday pay). For Claimant 3 (Mrs C Davey), although she did not attend, on the evidence heard the judge was satisfied that her unauthorised deduction of wages, holiday pay and notice pay claims were well founded, and ordered payment of £1,657.50 gross.
In respect of Claimant 4 (Mrs J Smith), the oral judgment given on 3 December 2024 was revoked under rule 73 because the Notice of Hearing had not been correctly served; that claim was reconsidered under rule 21 in a separate judgment. The written judgment was amended in respect of Claimant 3 on 20 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 22 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claimant 1 (Miss A Jones): redundancy pay claim found well founded. | Upheld | — | £1,307 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant 1 (Miss A Jones): unauthorised deduction of wages claim found well founded; £517.14 unpaid wages component. | Upheld | — | £517 |
| Holiday pay | Claimant 1 (Miss A Jones): holiday pay component of the £3,764.37 gross award. | Upheld | — | £632 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant 1 (Miss A Jones): notice pay component, classified as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,307 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant 2 (Miss C Griffiths): unauthorised deduction of wages claim found well-founded; £966.08 unpaid wages component of £1,530.28 gross total. | Upheld | — | £966 |
| Breach of contract | Claimant 2 (Miss C Griffiths): notice period component, classified as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £334 |
| Holiday pay | Claimant 2 (Miss C Griffiths): holiday pay component of £1,530.28 gross total. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,952
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21
- rule 73
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.